Internet Archive says some employees have asked to be paid partially in Bitcoin

Group is asking for your donations in the Internet's "local currency."

It seems like every week or so Bitcoin moves further into the mainstream.

Most recently, it was online gambling. In November, even WordPress started taking payment in the digital currency. Last year, a Bitcoin bank was launched.

And on Thursday, the Internet Archive announced that it wants to collect donations, in Bitcoin, so that it can pay some employees, at their request—part of their salary, if they so choose—in Bitcoin. The online archive's mission is to store digital documents, including, most notably, previous versions of webpages.

If all goes well, wrote Internet Archive founder Brewster Kahle, the move will start in April 2013. “We hope to make it a continuing option," he added.

The group's address is: 17gN64BPHtxi4mEM3qWrxdwhieUvRq8R2r.

Kahle wrote the day before that Bitcoin is the “local currency” of the Internet.

“There are local currencies like Ithaca Hours or Bernal Bucks that facilitate trading within a community. Bitcoins are kind of like that. It is for those of the Internet,” he wrote. “I found getting it going was an adventure which ended in my figuring out how to donate to the Internet Archive, which was fun. People have donated over $5,000 worth of bitcoins in the last 2 years to the Internet Archive.”

Disclosure: Cyrus Farivar and Ars contributor Tim Lee both own some bitcoins.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

1. How often do Ars writers tackle stories about currency that is not bitcoin?2. It should probably be assumed that a person that exists in the state that mandates a particular currency would possess amounts of that currency. Bitcoin is not (as far as I know) an official currency in the US, or elsewhere, and there could be a real concern for people with an interest in the currency to encourage speculation in it to drive up their own value.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

It's a good-faith attempt at transparency. Financial writers typically disclose if they have a financial stake in companies/funds/securities/other instruments they're writing about.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

The reason we disclose our bitcoin holdings is because it's still a relatively small thing that's still fluctuating quite a bit, price-wise. (We've also previously covered its rise and fall, see: http://ars.to/Yrdyjs.) We would do the same thing if we held stocks in companies that we were writing about. For what it's worth, bitcoin's value has been rapidly rising, and has breached $30 per BTC, according to MtGox.com.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

1. How often do Ars writers tackle stories about currency that is not bitcoin?2. It should probably be assumed that a person that exists in the state that mandates a particular currency would possess amounts of that currency. Bitcoin is not (as far as I know) an official currency in the US, or elsewhere, and there could be a real concern for people with an interest in the currency to encourage speculation in it to drive up their own value.

Sadly, I haven't yet needed to mention the fact that I hold Z$50,000,000,000 (http://bit.ly/VARTIQ). :-)

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

The reason we disclose our bitcoin holdings is because it's still a relatively small thing that's still fluctuating quite a bit, price-wise. (We've also previously covered its rise and fall, see: http://ars.to/Yrdyjs.) We would do the same thing if we held stocks in companies that we were writing about. For what it's worth, bitcoin's value has been rapidly rising, and has breached $30 per BTC, according to MtGox.com.

Now this comment surprises me. Out of all of the Google, Microsoft and Apple articles I don't recall disclosures for owning stock in those companies. I assume Ars or Conde do not prohibit investing in particular companies, so I assume then the disclosures are not a company policy?

Though I could be wrong and maybe it is corporate policy not to own stock in companies that you report on?

Maybe it is corporate policy not to own stock in companies that you report on?

Bingo.

That's actually comforting to know. My first experience with a disclosure notice was a doctor that had stock in the companies that offered particular medical services. Unsurprisingly, they recommended that I avail myself of these medical services.

I appreciate the disclosure. As long as bitcoin continues to act as a commodity price wise (something I'd bet real money on) it should be treated like a stock or investment opportunity (with the proviso that any commodity that does $30 to $5 to $30 in a few years doesn't seem like a great long term investment).

That's actually comforting to know. My first experience with a disclosure notice was a doctor that had stock in the companies that offered particular medical services. Unsurprisingly, they recommended that I avail myself of these medical services.

While there are conflicts of interest to consider and concern is always a good idea, many investors do so because they find value in a particular product or corporate philosophy.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

1. How often do Ars writers tackle stories about currency that is not bitcoin?2. It should probably be assumed that a person that exists in the state that mandates a particular currency would possess amounts of that currency. Bitcoin is not (as far as I know) an official currency in the US, or elsewhere, and there could be a real concern for people with an interest in the currency to encourage speculation in it to drive up their own value.

Sadly, I haven't yet needed to mention the fact that I hold Z$50,000,000,000 (http://bit.ly/VARTIQ). :-)

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

It's a good-faith attempt at transparency. Financial writers typically disclose if they have a financial stake in companies/funds/securities/other instruments they're writing about.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

1. How often do Ars writers tackle stories about currency that is not bitcoin?2. It should probably be assumed that a person that exists in the state that mandates a particular currency would possess amounts of that currency. Bitcoin is not (as far as I know) an official currency in the US, or elsewhere, and there could be a real concern for people with an interest in the currency to encourage speculation in it to drive up their own value.

Sadly, I haven't yet needed to mention the fact that I hold Z$50,000,000,000 (http://bit.ly/VARTIQ). :-)

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

It's a good-faith attempt at transparency. Financial writers typically disclose if they have a financial stake in companies/funds/securities/other instruments they're writing about.

Yes, but not currencies.

It would be dishonest to pretend that Bitcoin is a currency like other currencies. There aren't a lot of bitcoins in circulation, many people use them for speculation, and their price fluctuates widely...they behave much more like a stock than like a currency.

The small number of Bicoins out there, plus the speculative nature of the currency, plus how the price moves like a stock means that positive articles in the press have at least the possibility of moving the value of Bitcoins upwards. Which would mean more money for Tim and Cyrus. Which is why they quite properly report the fact that they own some.

I don't think that this is hard to figure out; I can help but suspect that people who object to this level of transparency are only doing so because they want Bitcoins to be considered to be on a par with currencies like the dollar or the Euro. Which of course is not the case, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Not to be a douche, but the article title says 'some employee's have asked' and the article content says nothing about employees, just that they're accepting it as a donation..

"And on Thursday, the Internet Archive announced that it wants to collect donations, in bitcoin, so that it can pay its employees—some of their salary, if they so choose—in bitcoin."

"if they so choose"

is not the same as:

"employees have asked to"

FFS

Ars Headline wrote:

Internet Archive says employees have asked to be paid partially in Bitcoin

The goddamn source material wrote:

Some Internet Archive employees have elected to receive some of their pay in Bitcoin in April. If this is successful we hope to make it a continuing option.

What is the problem here?/grumble I swear Bitcoin articles bring out the worst commenters.

Grumble all you want but it would get you docked in your Journalism class. It is a "head bust." The headline is stating that the fact the employees that has already happened. The story posits a possibility but never states anything about the employees having already asked for it. The online/copy editor should know better when writing the article and a Senior editor should not let it stand without correction.

It would help draw some donations if there were a page listing donations along with some unique indication to identify the transaction to the donor (probably the temporary bitcoin address used to send that contribution). Feedback via email works for non-anonymous donations, but an anonymous bitcoin donation should not require compromise of anonymity.

Feedback is needed to keep confidence at a high level that none of the funds disappear into someone's pocket, rather than supporting the intended purpose. People at Internet Archive are themselves making a valuable contribution by their efforts, and are probably unusually well-intentioned. The reason for the feedback would be to avoid even the slightest doubt about anything that would reduce support for the project.

Of course, they also need to consider how much effort this would require, vs. what else they could accomplish by not redirecting that effort.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

It's a good-faith attempt at transparency. Financial writers typically disclose if they have a financial stake in companies/funds/securities/other instruments they're writing about.

Yes, but not currencies.

It would be dishonest to pretend that Bitcoin is a currency like other currencies. There aren't a lot of bitcoins in circulation, many people use them for speculation, and their price fluctuates widely...they behave much more like a stock than like a currency.

The small number of Bicoins out there, plus the speculative nature of the currency, plus how the price moves like a stock means that positive articles in the press have at least the possibility of moving the value of Bitcoins upwards. Which would mean more money for Tim and Cyrus. Which is why they quite properly report the fact that they own some.

I don't think that this is hard to figure out; I can help but suspect that people who object to this level of transparency are only doing so because they want Bitcoins to be considered to be on a par with currencies like the dollar or the Euro. Which of course is not the case, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise.

Why the disclosure? Do journalists for financial papers, when writing about fluctuations in American currency write "Disclosure: My salary and retirement fund are both in US dollars." Seems a bit odd..

1. How often do Ars writers tackle stories about currency that is not bitcoin?2. It should probably be assumed that a person that exists in the state that mandates a particular currency would possess amounts of that currency. Bitcoin is not (as far as I know) an official currency in the US, or elsewhere, and there could be a real concern for people with an interest in the currency to encourage speculation in it to drive up their own value.

Sadly, I haven't yet needed to mention the fact that I hold Z$50,000,000,000 (http://bit.ly/VARTIQ). :-)

Grumble all you want but it would get you docked in your Journalism class. It is a "head bust." The headline is stating that the fact the employees that has already happened. The story posits a possibility but never states anything about the employees having already asked for it. The online/copy editor should know better when writing the article and a Senior editor should not let it stand without correction.

You're being pedantic and I'm not even convinced you're right on whatever technicality you're getting at. The headline states that employees "have asked to be paid" in Bitcoin. There is no part of this that is untrue - Internet Archive employees have asked to be paid in Bitcoin. The payment hasn't happened yet, as stated in the body of the article ("the move will start in April 2013"). Per the source material: "Some Internet Archive employees have elected to receive some of their pay in Bitcoin in April." (emphasis mine)

I didn't study journalism, so some of the subtleties may be lost on me. I'm not familiar with the term "head bust", but I'm plenty familiar with lousy headlines. This really, really doesn't seem like one of them.

Grumble all you want but it would get you docked in your Journalism class. It is a "head bust." The headline is stating that the fact the employees that has already happened. The story posits a possibility but never states anything about the employees having already asked for it. The online/copy editor should know better when writing the article and a Senior editor should not let it stand without correction.

You're being pedantic and I'm not even convinced you're right on whatever technicality you're getting at. The headline states that employees "have asked to be paid" in Bitcoin. There is no part of this that is untrue - Internet Archive employees have asked to be paid in Bitcoin. The payment hasn't happened yet, as stated in the body of the article ("the move will start in April 2013"). Per the source material: "Some Internet Archive employees have elected to receive some of their pay in Bitcoin in April." (emphasis mine)

I didn't study journalism, so some of the subtleties may be lost on me. I'm not familiar with the term "head bust", but I'm plenty familiar with lousy headlines. This really, really doesn't seem like one of them.

We've changed the hed and body to make more clear. Hopefully this will fix it! Thanks.

What's the benefit of being paid in bitcoins? Tax evasion? Of course there is certainly a real risk: another currency collapse.

The Internet Archive would not want to risk their non-profit status, so they will likely report it properly to the IRS. How to deal with "payment in kind" (anything other than dollars) is well understood by them.

Aside from the geek value of having a screen popup that says "You've got money", if you work in a different country than the employer, or you want to send funds to relatives, it's easier because bitcoin is transnational, and you don't have to mess with bank wires (expensive), western union, or PayPal (doesn't go everywhere) to cross borders.

International transactions, and micro-transactions are the two places bitcoin is better than the alternatives. For example, some topics on reddit.com have enabled bitcoin tips in the comments. Imagine that, getting money from other people for good comments!

There aren't a lot of bitcoins in circulation, many people use them for speculation, and their price fluctuates widely...they behave much more like a stock than like a currency.

Actually, the Bitcoin money supply exceeds that of 20 nations now. Small nations, but still nations. Considering it was below last place two years ago, that is pretty impressive growth.

As for number in circulation, it's 1.08 quadrillion Satoshi (the smallest bitcoin unit). It's just the value of 1 BTC isn't large enough for many transactions in that unit. Currently people talk in terms of full coins, or milli-coins (worth 3 US cents), but a Satoshi is 0.01 micro-coins, which is another 100,000 times smaller.

You are correct that at the present time bitcoin behaves like a stock with similar market capitalization. It's really only been in use for two years, and a lot of the software and apps for it are still in development. I think of it like a tech start-up. Eventually people will figure out what uses it is good for, and word about it will get past the tech and finance community, and the distribution of new coins will settle down (in 4 years it will reduce to 4% new coins a year). If you want stability, wait till then.